NationStates

Master Shake wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:
They are not socialist programs. If anything, they are very Corporatist. Collectivist, all the same, but calling it socialism is very, very wrong.

How the hell is it not socialist?

Social Welfare?

Anyway I do agree that corporations do promote welfare so they can keep wages low and have the government pay the workers what they(Corporations) don't want to pay. Which is why so many people working at McDonald's collect Welfare instead of getting a $10 an hour wage...

Still though welfare was brought about by people who were worried about their fellow man and wanted the common people to learn and be able to put a roof over their heads. If corporations had it their way the education system would be used to teach kids how to flip burgers and customer service skills...

Basically educational systems and welfare ARE socialists based programs....

Distruzio wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:
They are not socialist programs. If anything, they are very Corporatist. Collectivist, all the same, but calling it socialism is very, very wrong.

Is it? All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding his or her will as an example of collectivism. The manner in which these organizations perpetuate is socialist in nature as the means of production for these organizations is collectively appropriated on all of society.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

Korouse wrote:How does the centre-left promote authoritarianism?

Just how the center-right promotes social authoritarianism , as the state regulates social life, the center left supports economic authoritarianism.

Far-leftism promotes statelessness. At least left-libertarianism, which means all the economics, as everything else is, are voluntary.

Distruzio wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
No, it's not. The far left and far right are dead. Right now it's the time for centre-left and moderate right.

Socialism doesn't exist anymore, except if you count North Korea, but they're State-Socialists on spoiled steroids and meth.

Nonsense. Socialism perpetuates. Especially here in the United States. The education system? The emergency response system? Elections? All of it... socialism. Or, more accurately, collectivism.

Pandeeria wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Pandeeria... you're confusing terms again. Socialism isn't just an economic paradigm. It's also a social one. It's social observations are collectivist in nature. Any and every democratic institution is collectivist. As such, socialism very much exists here in the United States.

Socialism is mainly an economic system.

Does socialism contain collectivist traits? Yes, but do so many other ideologies.

Collectivism (even though the US doesn't have it) =/= Socialism.

The New Sea Territory wrote:
And to discredit an ideology because it killed people is nonsense. The Founding Fathers fought a war. FDR, Truman and Reagan and many other presidents killed people. So? It doesn't discredit the philosophy.

Liberaxia wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Nonsense. Socialism perpetuates. Especially here in the United States. The education system? The emergency response system? Elections? All of it... socialism. Or, more accurately, collectivism.

Gibberish. You're just haphazardly throwing that word around. You sound like a nutty Bircher on my end.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

Korouse wrote:How does the centre-left promote authoritarianism?

Just how the center-right promotes social authoritarianism , as the state regulates social life, the center left supports economic authoritarianism.

Far-leftism promotes statelessness. At least left-libertarianism, which means all the economics, as everything else is, are voluntary.

Distruzio wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
Hahahahah, no.

Education, Elections, etc. are not socialism. There hardly is any work place democracy, the poor-rich divide is insane.

Socialism isn't here any more. Industrialization wiped it out.

Pandeeria... you're confusing terms again. Socialism isn't just an economic paradigm. It's also a social one. It's social observations are collectivist in nature. Any and every democratic institution is collectivist. As such, socialism very much exists here in the United States.

Distruzio wrote:

Liberaxia wrote:
Gibberish. You're just haphazardly throwing that word around. You sound like a nutty Bircher on my end.

Reads mah linky.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Is it? All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding his or her will as an example of collectivism. The manner in which these organizations perpetuate is socialist in nature as the means of production for these organizations is collectively appropriated on all of society.

I agree with you on taxes. I'm not a statist. I'm merely saying that the US is collectivist, but not socialist. It is corporatist. The corporation and the government work together to screw over everyone else.

Master Shake wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:
And to discredit an ideology because it killed people is nonsense. The Founding Fathers fought a war. FDR, Truman and Reagan and many other presidents killed people. So? It doesn't discredit the philosophy.

Lets not get into a numbers contest...

I mean the Nazi's got 10,000,000 deaths and they are hated worldwide...

The communists have 100,000,000 corpses in their closet and they wonder why they are hated worldwide....

The Capitalists death toll may never be known, but it isn't even near what the communist have done...

Also you can't lump the Imperialists into the capitalists because they are two different types of people...

Also the deaths the Capitalists caused were primarily Natives,Nazi and communists...Sure the Natives didn't deserve death, but the other two were threats to global peace and stability...

Liberaxia wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Pandeeria... you're confusing terms again. Socialism isn't just an economic paradigm. It's also a social one. It's social observations are collectivist in nature. Any and every democratic institution is collectivist. As such, socialism very much exists here in the United States.

I call BS. Democracy is to me an extension of the individual.

Distruzio wrote:

Liberaxia wrote:
I call BS. Democracy is to me an extension of the individual.

Then you confuse individualism as much as you do libertarianism.... which explains a lot, actually.

Liberaxia wrote:

Distruzio wrote:

Reads mah linky.

It's still a very fluffy word that's lacking in substance.

Germanic Imperium wrote:All Communists have no Idea how politics work, as with all left wingers, and should be put to death, And the Communists are nothing more than Corrupt Monsters that should all be slaughtered in the name of Order. Without Order and control we have People doing whatever they want, and Nothing will get done, People will be hurt, Rules are there to keep you safe, to make sure nothing goes wrong. That's how my Country thinks.

Distruzio wrote:

Liberaxia wrote:It's still a very fluffy word that's lacking in substance.

<<eyeroll>>

You disliking the word for it's fluffiness doesn't diminish the fact that I was not speaking "gibberish" or "haphazardly" using the word.

I'm adhering to definitions, here.

That those definitions upset you, or offend you, is not my concern.

Cu Math wrote:

Master Shake wrote:
Lets not get into a numbers contest...

I mean the Nazi's got 10,000,000 deaths and they are hated worldwide...

The communists have 100,000,000 corpses in their closet and they wonder why they are hated worldwide....

The Capitalists death toll may never be known, but it isn't even near what the communist have done...

Also you can't lump the Imperialists into the capitalists because they are two different types of people...

Also the deaths the Capitalists caused were primarily Natives,Nazi and communists...Sure the Natives didn't deserve death, but the other two were threats to global peace and stability...

Let's not forget the entirety of the imperial age, WW1, the thousands lost in factories... here's one. Leopold's Congo. That wasn't exactly Nazi killing

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Cu Math wrote:Let's not forget the entirety of the imperial age, WW1, the thousands lost in factories... here's one. Leopold's Congo. That wasn't exactly Nazi killing

At last, the Imperialism was not capitalism but mercantilism which lasted as long as countries had colonies.

Korouse wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
<<eyeroll>>

You disliking the word for it's fluffiness doesn't diminish the fact that I was not speaking "gibberish" or "haphazardly" using the word.

I'm adhering to definitions, here.

That those definitions upset you, or offend you, is not my concern.

That word is not soft and cuddly, you liar.

Distruzio wrote:Being that the McCarthy Era and subsequent Tea Party GOP fearmongering has perverted American comprehension of terms you are, colloquially, correct.

Distruzio wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:
Socialism is mainly an economic system.

Ah so you agree in principle. Now you quibble with the degree.

Does socialism contain collectivist traits? Yes, but do so many other ideologies.

That says much for my argument, then, doesn't it?

Collectivism (even though the US doesn't have it) =/= Socialism.

The US does, in point of fact, possess significant collectivist institutions.

Dat Wiki Article wrote:An example of a collectivist political system is representative democracy, as in such systems, after voting occurs and a leader has been chosen by the populace everyone is expected to accept that individual as their leader regardless of whether they voted for them or not. For example, in the United States Presidential election of 2012 Barack Obama received a majority of the electoral college votes cast, and the opposition was expected to submit to letting him lead them whether or not they had originally voted for him. The will of the "collective" (President Obama voters) mattered more and is considered "collectivist" because ultimately, the totality of decision by the voters in the country, expressed through the electoral college system, was more important than the will of any single individual in that context.

Distruzio wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:
They are not socialist programs. If anything, they are very Corporatist. Collectivist, all the same, but calling it socialism is very, very wrong.

Is it? All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding his or her will as an example of collectivism. The manner in which these organizations perpetuate is socialist in nature as the means of production for these organizations is collectively appropriated on all of society.

Cu Math wrote:

The Serbian Empire wrote:At last, the Imperialism was not capitalism but mercantilism which lasted as long as countries had colonies.

Leopold's Congo was more capitalist. It had a corporation holding the land, unregulated by the government, that provided a good to the market. At the expense of a few thousand africans